Not sure if anyone can help, not strictly H&S but an issue related in as much that an employee is using Facebook to have a 'pop' at his Company Director after disciplinary action on an H&S matter. Any of you had to put together and implement a Policy to assist in managing this? If so any help would be much appreciated...... in this new age of social networking a growing trend I fear.

Welcome to the machine! If what the employee has posted is libelous, defamatory or damaging to the business (unless it can be substantiated) you may have a case. Otherwise, the director might just have to accept that people have opinions. I'm assuming that the comments on FB weren't made during works time or on works PC? If the director in question is suggesting that policies be put in place to prevent/discourage people from sharing an opinion of them that is negative then I would suggest social networking is the least of their problems.

Victor, I suggest someone from your organisation takes screen dumps of the FB pages for future evidence. People can write some pretty awful things, leave them up for a couple hours and then delete the post leaving only rumours and hearsay. Give him the rope by all means but keep hold of the other end.

Yheap! Opinions can be expensive! You're more than welcome to have one as long as you never need to work again! (mind you, once you've retired.........)

Did the employee have a point in what was said on FB???

Garfield esq - no the employee didn't have a point and rich777 yes a supposedly land of free speech but not personal abuse. Latest is, the employee telephoned me last night to ask me to meet him so he can speak to me about "things" as he's "fed up of being victimised & told he must wear PPE". Never mind that everyone else is wearing PPE & the regulations. Oh well, maybe a chat from me and the fastening of electrodes from a legal standpoint may finally sort this - look out for FB abuse towards Victor!

How free is "free speach" nowadays? This was certainly not pleasant, but should he have had the right to free speach, however repugnant? Discuss ...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17530792

Update - Well he took the rope, totally lost the plot, verbally abused, swore with threats of violence to a number of employees. The Police had to be called in the end. So suspended until the Director can get back - meeting tomorrow which will result in the obvious....... the second situation, another client of mine had to dismiss someone today after physical violence against an employee...... is it the sun?

Blimey Victor - you don't half pick your work!!! Makes my place look like a monastery!!!

Ron Article 10, of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides the right to freedom of expression. The First Amendment of the US constitution guarantees Free of Speech UK law guarantees nothing.

Sounds like you wil be getting rid of a troublesome employee. One thought niggles though. Why did he feel uncomfortable with wearing PPE? Most PPE is uncomfortable, inconvenient, hinders the work, some is hot and sweaty, some is heavy, some is isolating and some restrict vision. Is there a genuine need for whatever equipment rules you are imposing, is it appropriate, is it adequate? A breach of safety rules is unacceptable but maybe there is something to ponder on.

Walker, no bit of an insult meant but sometimes we can overlook the obvious. Also, less experienced practitioners may benefit from having an alternative point of view stated here, as well as reminding them that PPE is moistly horrible to have to use (pun intended).

Thanks everyone; responses as follow; Stuie - yes I do seem to pick them, however this is a particularly bad 'run' at the moment. Ron Hunter - ages, No: 1 is 45 & No: 2 is 48......old enough to know better I think. SpaceNinja - at three o'clock neither did I believe it. David Bannister - Why? Beats me, we went through all that, he just wouldn't comply. The use of Abrasive Wheels require users to wear eye/face protection..... yes? Calmer day today...... training Directors/CEOs..... However, when I went to fill up with diesel it all kicked off..... think I'll take 'Margaret' for a drink!

Margaret? Come on Victor, we all know you're having a 'thing' with Mrs Warbouys!!!!!

I can’t help but feel this saga is not over. Unless they had some odd ulterior motive for wanting to be unemployed, they are going to claim they were victimised and hat they were under a lot of stress that was not identified by their employer. This stress is then going to be used as the excuse for the outbursts. Or something along those lines, as he is obviously stressed out about something –it’s not over.

I was being a bit rhetorical here; of course the Human Rights Act incorporates the European Convention into UK law. What I was getting at as that until we had the Human Rights Act there was nothing in UK law that guaranteed freedom of speech or of expression, which would have surprised lot of people who assume that we something called freedom of speech in country going back centuries- we didn’t. John Murray- This is not EU law and nothing to do the European Communities Act which makes EU law UK law. Separate legislation, separate institutions and they have separate courts, for EU law –European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for the European Convention. Victor – I have had people try say that the Human Rights Act entitles them not to wear PPE. But when I challenged them they couldn’t tell me which article of the convention allows them to act like a prat and prevents me from getting them the sack. But at last they didn’t go off on one- good luck. I can imagine the wrongful dismissal claim that will be winging your way.

Copied from Hazards. Copyright material presented in TUC e-bulletins is owned by the TUC, unless otherwise stated. Recipients are permitted to print and download extracts for their own personal or union use, provided the source and TUC's copyright is acknowledged. ########## The Information Commissioner's Office has warned employers in the UK that it would have 'very serious concerns' if they were to ask for Facebook login and password details from existing or would-be employees, following reports of such demands in the US. A spokesperson for the ICO told The Guardian newspaper: 'The UK Data Protection Act clearly says that organisations shouldn't hold excessive information about individuals, and it's questionable why they would need that information in the first place.' In the US, two American senators are asking the US attorney general, Eric Holder, to investigate whether the practice of employers asking for Facebook passwords during job interviews is violating federal law. Press reports say some private and public agencies in the US are asking job seekers for their social media details. Facebook has since warned employers not to ask job applicants for their passwords to the site, noting that it would break its terms of service. The company threatened legal action against applications that violate its long-standing policy against sharing passwords. There are indications sick workers in the UK could already have their Facebook and other social networking pages scrutinised by employers and insurers. One personal injury solicitor warned in 2008 the practice was already in use to discredit compensation claims (Risks 384). In the US this year, a worker had his workers' compensation withdrawn after a judge ruled a Facebook entry showing him 'partying' was acceptable evidence of his recovery (Risks 542)

The problem with Facebook is that it is not private, it's a public forum, the equivalent of shouting it from the rooftops. Employers have certain rights in relation to their employees such a right to business confidentially. Of course employers cannot censure what an employee puts out on Facebook but if an employee undermines his employer, without a good cause then I can see nothing wrong with the employee facing the consequences. If employees start undermining the employer then there will be complete breakdown in trust, within the company and the management is more likely to become hypersensitive and secretive and just not inform anybody about anything. This would make management of anything difficult including H&S.